I've no idea who wrote this, but:
1) It has a lot of languages missing. No Ruby?
2) It's incredibly subjective and lacking references, e.g. the notes for
Perl say "unmaintainable".
3) Method pointers, as someone on IRC just explained them to me, seem
necessarily a feature of strong static type systems in OO languages like
C++, and not really useful outside of these.
4) Function overloading, one could argue, being a first class language
feature is a criticism of that language. If we want to redispatch based on
for example types of function arguments, we write a function that does
this. There are CPAN modules to do it. So either the author has a very
narrow definition or they're wrong on half the points.
Why do we care about this? Nobody is going to take this half-written,
half-made-up nonsense very seriously.
/joel
On 11 July 2013 17:15, Mallory van Achterberg <stommepoes at stommepoes.nl>wrote:
> Hey all,
>> Hixie wrote up (or just posted from elsewhere) this
>http://ian.hixie.ch/programming/>> This is going around the twitters. Wonder if some of the
> mistakes can be fixed.
>> -Mallory
>>